H ERE’S an idea for the folks at the New York Times Co., searching for a developer to put up a new headquarters on Eighth Avenue:

Before bogging down in a political quagmire that would require state condemnation of properties and a goodie-bag of tax breaks from the city, talk to the guys at Lawrence Ruben/Vornado partnership.

They’re combing the globe for tenants for their proposed 35-story tower on top of the Port Authority Bus Terminal. That project, called 7 Times Square, is right across the avenue from where yours would stand.

They’d take your call. When I asked Jonathan Mayblum, Lawrence Ruben executive vice-president, why the Times couldn’t be their tenant at the Port Authority, he said, to the contrary: “They could be.”

Of course, the Times Co. has historically owned its buildings, and might not want to team up with a designated developer in what would be, as one real estate insider termed it, an “arranged marriage.”

And Mayblum was perhaps being hypothetical. When I mentioned the PA project to Insignia/ESG Vice Chairman Mary Ann Tighe — who’s representing the Times, and so could not comment on the Times’ search — she first responded politely, “Excuse me, what is 7 Times Square?”

When the town’s preeminent superbroker asks to be reminded of its name, you know the PA scheme faces an identity dilemma.

One source said the developers, who are paying the PA $110 million for the right to build, were considering renaming it “10 Times Square” because “it sounds better.”

The scheme, by any name, is one of three jumbos planned within a few blocks of one another on West 42nd Street — none of which can proceed without an anchor tenant. Guessing “who’s got a tenant?” is Times Square’s new version of 3-card monte.

The others are Durst’s “One Bryant Park” on the north side of 42nd Street between Sixth and Seventh avenues, bogged down with an uncompleted assemblage; and Boston Properties’ “Times Square Tower” on the south side of 42nd between Seventh and Broadway.

Last week, it was embarrassingly reported that Boston, which is led by Mort Zuckerman, had sent out an “unsolicited” lease proposal to law giant Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells, which said it had no interest in moving. Boston’s broker, John Powers at Insignia, told us, “No comment.”

Boston’s plight demonstrates how short the list of potential anchors is: Chase bank, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Deutsche Bank, and Price WaterhouseCoopers, and one or two others.

Ruben/Vornado faces a particular challenge marketing its 35-story tower that so far exists only on the Skidmore Owings & Merrill drawing board.

Although the “new” Times Square is a roaring success, “a lot of companies perceive Eighth Avenue as being outside it,” one source says. “There’s still porno around. And it is on top of a bus terminal.”

But Mayblum is “confident.” He says the developers are prepared to build with considerably less than full occupancy signed in advance.

“We’d probably commence building with a tenant or group of tenants who totaled under 50 percent — say, 45 percent.

“If we signed, say, two tenants of 200,000 and 250,000 square-feet each, we’d be ready to go ahead.

“Our building grants a tenant the chance to create a magnificent corporate identity.”

So what about the Times, which wants to build on the east side of Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets?

Mayblum said, “I’d rather not get specific about one or more prospects. Any user in excess of 500,000 square-feet would be a serious prospect.

“With our unique floor plate — 60,000 square-feet at the base, and 35,000 in the tower — they would be remiss not to take a serious look.”